The Crown Jewels

For many, the idea of assets and ecosystems is too abstract. Commodities like timber are too dry (sometimes literally) and boring to care about. Let’s get to the good stuff. What are some of the really cool things we the American people own? How about these:

How about Yellowstone and Yosemite? How about the Grand Canyon, Grand Tetons, Great Lakes, and Great Smokies along with the Appalachians, Cascades, Sierra Nevadas, and Rockies? Are you ready to turn these magnificent places over to corporate interests? The Cato Institute is:

… why should those who oppose development be able to impose their preferences regarding land use on everyone else? If there is more money to be made by turning the Grand Canyon over to the Walt Disney Co. rather than to an eco-sensitive tourism cooperative, it simply means that the public demand for Disney’s services at the Grand Canyon is greater than the public’s demand for Deep Green Trail Services Inc.

… Some object to privatization because they (environmentalists) believe that our national “crown jewels” (however defined) are sacred natural treasures and that no price tag can or should be attached to them. Well, one is welcome to one’s beliefs, but value is subjective. Land is worth only what people will pay for it. And while you might well believe that old growth forests are “sacred,” you can’t expect a government that strives to keep church separated from state to provide you with a taxpayer-financed cathedral.

The authors of this work also posit that “environmentalist complaints are really complaints about the preferences of the rabble. If the preferences of the rich were to dominate the market, the environment would likely benefit because the rich (as a group) care a lot more about the environment than anyone else.”

Do you buy the Cato Institute’s position on selling off the commons? Frankly, I’m firmly in the camp of Woody Guthrie on the matter:

As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me

Mike is a leading authority in the field of standardized test preparation, but he's also a traveler who fully expects to see every bird in the world. Besides founding 10,000 Birds, Mike has also created a number of other entertaining but now extirpated nature blog resources, particularly the Nature Blog Network and I and the Bird.

Share This Article

FB Comments

8 Comments

The Cato Institute is wrong in a very simple way: values may change over time and – in contrast to human structures we value, e.g. architecture – nature is not easily reparable.
Back in the 1940s, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker was driven out of the Singer Trackt and possibly this planet because society valued timber higher than the woodpecker. I am quite certain that today’s society would gladly pay more money than the Singer Trackt’s timber was worth just to have the woodpecker back (for sure). However, no matter how much we are willing to spend and how much we want the woodpecker back, it -possibly- isn’t going to happen and there’s nothing we can do.
So, how are our feelings towards the people that cleared the Singer Trackt? Do we feel they had the right to neglect the woodpecker, hence taking it away from all future generations, just for the profit of that particular generation?
If we turned the Grand Canyon into another Disney Land today, hence changing its landscape for good and all time, we would take away something a future generation may value much higher than Disney Land, and that is something we do not have the right to do.

You’re exactly right, Jochen. Certain individuals will always put their immediate gain ahead of the birthright of countless generations. Today we have coal companies blowing the tops off of mountains; there’s just no way a future generation is going to be able to rebuild those mountains. They’re gone forever, even though we have no conception of the repercussions of their loss.

What really bothers me is the quote about the rich people (as a group) care about the environment more than anyone else. Personally, I think that remark is totally wrong; I personally feel that there are people from all socio-economic backgrounds who care about the environment. It would be interesting to do a study or survey on this just to prove that environmentalists come from all walks of life. On another note, many naturalists and park rangers, etc. are environmentalists, too – and they are not considered rich in the financial sense – they are only rich in the opportunity to commune with Mother Nature on a 24/7 basis.

The Cato folks don’t seem to understand the difference between long term planning and short term gain. Damage to eco-systems from the idea of the day can’t be repaired that quickly. Getting rid of an amusement park within a national park would be almost impossible once that tourist attraction is in place. I can’t understand why some people have such difficulty with the concept of leaving some places as they are and limiting the uses there to the feeling of awe at a natural place.

As preserved land gets less and less, the demand (and cost) to preserve it will skyrocket. Tiny plots of land around Chicago can cost tens of millions of dollars to preserve because the land is vanishing so quickly. That is why our county is working so diligently on raising funds to conserve what we left.

No, lewis, I’m not insinuating any of that. In fact, the political implications of the term ‘crown jewels’ never occurred to me. I use the term here simply to highlight how very rare and precious these magnificent parks owned by the American people are.